Breaking: Woman shot while trying to kill ICE agents in Minnesota

[Frankenstein]

You mean the obstruction was stopping in the road. If ICE can't easily handle that, they are as stupid as you are.

She parked sideways and wouldn't move, when they finally told her to get out of the car, is when she attempted to kill the officer. She should not have listened to the leaders calling for this type behavior

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

From the drivers perspective that would be the lower left side…… tomato tomatoe who gives a ****

Are you the driver? Then you must be dead!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She parked sideways and wouldn't move

What was going to happen if she wouldn't move for another 3 minutes? 10 minutes? Or more? There were cars going around her, and nobody was even being inconvenienced.

 

[Frankenstein]

What was going to happen if she wouldn't move for another 3 minutes? 10 minutes? or more? There were cars going around her, and nobody was even being inconvenienced.

She was obstructing federal officials from doing their job! Stop being dense

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She was obstructing federal officials from doing their job! Stop being dense

No, their job is to deal with whatever comes along, like getting somebody off the road.

 

[Frankenstein]

No, their job is to deal with whatever comes along, like getting somebody off the road.

So they should have shot earlier, I agree

 

[Blisterfinger]

ICE has no jurisdiction over US Citizens.

They do when they are being obstructed

 

[WEATHER53]

Lib loons still trying to sell that the 2/3 angles showing the car moving toward the agent are mirages

 

[OODA_Loop]

Preach.

Who did he pardon that wasn't jailed for their actions?

 

[playtime]

Did he?

if he did, then that makes the smokey eyes hillbilly a ******* liar.

huh- 'magine that.

 

[Godboy]

I've never seen a cop put himself in front of an automobile with the engine running. .

A cop literally does that in this video.

 

[Godboy]

She wasn't an armed dangerous criminal. Once the car was no longer pointed at the officers, it's the same as an armed criminal dropping his weapon.

The car was the weapon and it has a steering wheel that allows the driver to point the car in whatever direction you want. She could easily drive off, then turn around and come back at them, or ram the car into a pedestrian.

 

[2aguy]

Your first lie is she tried to murder the officer with her car. She did not try to kill the ice agent who shot her three times at point blank range and killed her.

Any bump by a car is NOT a murder attempt under the law that guides him...

I never said that....anywhere, in fact, I have explained what I thought happened over and over....so you are either confusing me with someone else, or you are lying....

I have stated over and over that she was trying to flee from the agent at the door, and moved the SUV pointing it, likely unknowingly at the agent.....at this point her body was flooded with adrenaline and her vision went to tunnel vision, time slowed down, and she lost depth perception.....so she saw the agent in front of her and thought she could get around him.....and hit him when she tried....

That has no bearing on what the agent thought when he saw her driving at him.....he had a nano second to determine what to do, in particular because he was on ice and when he is hit, both feet slide out.

The Supreme Court has ruled that if an officer believes he is in mortal danger or someone else is in mortal danger, they can fire to defend themselves....and hind sight cannot be used to determine if his actions were justified....you must use what he knew at the time in the context of the event....

Once he determined he was under threat of life or great injury, he could fire his weapon until he thought the danger was over, up to and including firing at a fleeing vehicle........one of the examples in the cases was a female officer firing 15 times at a car that was fleeing the scene of a crime and her shooting was ruled justified.....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[playtime]

3 Questions:

why the fk was he holding a personal cell phone at the same time he was shooting renee good in the face?

why the fk was he shooting renee good in the face thru the windshield when his partner, who was grabbing the door handle, was still standing there, just a couple feet away from that bullet?

why the fk did he shoot a 3rd time after she was clearly away from his body?

anyone? anyone care to justify those 3 obvious unprofessional, dangerous, & triggered responses from renee good's murderer?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

I've never seen a cop put himself in front of an automobile with the engine running. Nor to the rear.
They will tell the driver to shut off the vehicle if they need to look closely at the front or rear of the vehicle.

And you still haven't. As the videos CLEARLY show, he is walking from one side of the vehicle to the other, and only ends up in front of the automobile AFTER she reverses. You're either blind or lying to claim anything otherwise. He did NOT 'put himself in front' of that automobile.

 

[2aguy]

3 Questions:

why the fk was he holding a personal cell phone at the same time he was shooting renee good in the face?

why the fk was he shooting renee good in the face thru the windshield when his partner, who was grabbing the door handle, was still standing there, just a couple feet away from that bullet?

why the fk did he shoot a 3rd time after she was clearly away from his body?

anyone? anyone care to justify those 3 obvious unprofessional, dangerous, & triggered responses from renee good's murderer?

He had the cell phone out to protect himself from false allegations....turns out he was right...his video shows he was hit by her......

He shot through the windshield because he had a nano second to react to her ramming him......then she hit him and as he was firing the car turned and he slid off the hood......

The Supreme Court has rulled that once an officer determines he is in danger of being killed, he can fire in self defense until the threat is stopped, including firing at a fleeing vehicle.....the example they gave was a female police officer who fired 15 times at a fleeing vehicle and that was considered justified....

 

[marvin martian]

You mean the obstruction was stopping in the road. If ICE can't easily handle that, they are as stupid as you are.

They did handle it.

 

[Care4all]

Dead is dead, and whether or not it is a misdemeanor wouldn't make a ******* difference, and I don't even have to look it up you ******* complete retard.

Just stop, because nothing you are posting will ever make sense or help anyone.

Have you actually read the law on how LE is suppose to react in this circumstance with a car? You need to, and stop lying about it.

You wouldn't have the crooked Trump DOJ creating the COVER UP of the ICE crime, if the killer was in the right.

 

[2aguy]

3 Questions:

why the fk was he holding a personal cell phone at the same time he was shooting renee good in the face?

why the fk was he shooting renee good in the face thru the windshield when his partner, who was grabbing the door handle, was still standing there, just a couple feet away from that bullet?

why the fk did he shoot a 3rd time after she was clearly away from his body?

anyone? anyone care to justify those 3 obvious unprofessional, dangerous, & triggered responses from renee good's murderer?

Some legal points....

Legal points from John Fry with Supreme Court citations...

-------
Are there any legal arguments I missed? IF SO BRING YOUR “A” GAME-I want to be complete in my legal assessment.
Before anything else, it must be said that this case involves the tragic loss of a human life. Renee Good was a mother, and her death is undeniably heartbreaking. Nothing about this case minimizes that loss, and it is natural to feel strong emotion in response to it. But your responsibility is not to view this situation based on sympathy, anger, or grief. It must be decided on the law and the facts as they actually occurred.

The evidence shows that the driver positioned her vehicle diagonally in the roadway during an active federal enforcement operation, interfering with officers as they performed their duties. While the road was not completely blocked and there may have been room to pass, the law does not require total obstruction to establish interference or a public-safety risk. Partial obstruction that disrupts officer movement or interferes with an ongoing operation is sufficient. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers may detain a vehicle based on specific, articulable facts showing obstruction or a public-safety risk (Terry v. Ohio). A command that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore constitutes a lawful detention (Brendlin v. California), and officers are expressly permitted to order a driver to exit a vehicle during such a detention (Pennsylvania v. Mimms; Maryland v. Wilson).

Instead of complying, the driver accelerated while an officer was directly in front of—or partially in front of—the vehicle. A moving vehicle in that context is legally recognized as a deadly weapon, and deadly force is justified when an officer faces an immediate threat of serious bodily harm (Tennessee v. Garner). The first shot fired entered through the windshield at a moment when that threat was immediate. The vehicle then continued moving and swerved to the right ultimately only grazing or missing the officer. Two additional shots were fired in rapid succession and likely entered through the driver’s window as the vehicle passed.


The law does not require an officer to pause and reassess between shots fired in fractions of a second during a single, unfolding event. Courts analyze such force as a continuous response to an ongoing threat (Plumhoff v. Rickard). The standard is objective reasonableness under the circumstances as they existed at the moment force was used, not hindsight judgment (Graham v. Connor).


You may hear arguments about whether the officer should have been standing where he was. Even if departmental policy discouraged that positioning, policy is not the law. A possible policy issue does not negate lawful self-defense or transfer responsibility to the officer when a suspect chooses to accelerate toward him. The Constitution asks whether the officer’s response was reasonable to the threat he faced, not whether every tactical decision was perfect (Graham v. Connor).
When you apply the law to these facts, the conclusion is clear. The officer’s actions were justified.

 

[2aguy]

Have you actually read the law on how LE is suppose to react in this circumstance with a car? You need to, and stop lying about it.

You wouldn't have the crooked Trump DOJ creating the COVER UP of the ICE crime, if the killer was in the right.

This guy has.....


Legal points from John Fry with Supreme Court citations...

-------
Are there any legal arguments I missed? IF SO BRING YOUR “A” GAME-I want to be complete in my legal assessment.
Before anything else, it must be said that this case involves the tragic loss of a human life. Renee Good was a mother, and her death is undeniably heartbreaking. Nothing about this case minimizes that loss, and it is natural to feel strong emotion in response to it. But your responsibility is not to view this situation based on sympathy, anger, or grief. It must be decided on the law and the facts as they actually occurred.

The evidence shows that the driver positioned her vehicle diagonally in the roadway during an active federal enforcement operation, interfering with officers as they performed their duties. While the road was not completely blocked and there may have been room to pass, the law does not require total obstruction to establish interference or a public-safety risk. Partial obstruction that disrupts officer movement or interferes with an ongoing operation is sufficient. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers may detain a vehicle based on specific, articulable facts showing obstruction or a public-safety risk (Terry v. Ohio). A command that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore constitutes a lawful detention (Brendlin v. California), and officers are expressly permitted to order a driver to exit a vehicle during such a detention (Pennsylvania v. Mimms; Maryland v. Wilson).

Instead of complying, the driver accelerated while an officer was directly in front of—or partially in front of—the vehicle. A moving vehicle in that context is legally recognized as a deadly weapon, and deadly force is justified when an officer faces an immediate threat of serious bodily harm (Tennessee v. Garner). The first shot fired entered through the windshield at a moment when that threat was immediate. The vehicle then continued moving and swerved to the right ultimately only grazing or missing the officer. Two additional shots were fired in rapid succession and likely entered through the driver’s window as the vehicle passed.


The law does not require an officer to pause and reassess between shots fired in fractions of a second during a single, unfolding event. Courts analyze such force as a continuous response to an ongoing threat (Plumhoff v. Rickard). The standard is objective reasonableness under the circumstances as they existed at the moment force was used, not hindsight judgment (Graham v. Connor).


You may hear arguments about whether the officer should have been standing where he was. Even if departmental policy discouraged that positioning, policy is not the law. A possible policy issue does not negate lawful self-defense or transfer responsibility to the officer when a suspect chooses to accelerate toward him. The Constitution asks whether the officer’s response was reasonable to the threat he faced, not whether every tactical decision was perfect (Graham v. Connor).
When you apply the law to these facts, the conclusion is clear. The officer’s actions were justified.